Standing Committee A

[Janet Andersonin the Chair]

New Clause 3

Court presentation officer
‘(1) Designated members of a relevant police constabulary shall, for the purposes of this section, have the powers and rights of audience of a Crown Prosecutor in relation to the prosecution of—
(a) the offences listed in paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Specified Proceedings) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/904);
(b) specified offences that cease to be specified when a magistrates' court begins to receive evidence in those proceedings where a defendant does not enter a plea.
(2) A designated member of a relevant police constabulary shall not have rights of audience when an offence ceases to be specified where the defendant enters a not guilty plea and the case proceeds to trial.
(3) A member of a relevant police constabulary shall be designated for the purposes of this section if that member is a recognised designated court presentation officer employed for that purpose.
(4) A recognised designated court presentation officer must also be a serving police officer from the relevant police constabulary.
(5) In exercising his role as a designated court presentation officer, a police officer must have regard to any advice or guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
(6) The Secretary of State may, by regulation, issue guidance on the recruitment, training and operation of designated court presentation officers.'. —[Mr. Kidney.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

David Kidney: I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure, Mrs. Anderson, to see you back in the Chair after the Easter break. New clause 3 is quite specific: it would allow police officers to present one more category of case in court; it is in addition to those that they can present already.
When I was a young solicitor there was no such thing as the Crown Prosecution Service. When desperate motorists who faced disqualification as a result of road traffic offences asked for my representation to help them save their driving licences, I would go to the magistrates court and find the courtroom filled with others who had similar cases. The prosecutor was a police officer in uniform, who presented the cases one after the other until the whole list had been finished. That was quite common in those days.
For reasons that I understand and with which I agree, Parliament decided, through the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, that prosecutions should not be undertaken by the police but by a separate organisation, and the Crown Prosecution Service was established. From then on, most prosecutions have been conducted by CPS employees or agents. However, a small number of minor, summary-only offences, including many road traffic offences, could still be presented by a police officer. They were known as specified offences. Even those offences ceased to be specified, and they had to be handed over to the CPS in two set circumstances.
The first circumstance was when the accused pleaded not guilty. Once a trial was required because of a not-guilty plea, legal judgments and other legal issues might benefit from the presence of a qualified CPS prosecutor rather than a police officer. That is understandable. The second was when a person simply ignored the court process and did not turn up. Even so, the argument would have been that some legal judgments were required. For example, the court would have to be satisfied that the person accused of the offence knew that he was supposed to be in court, so evidence would be needed that they had received the paperwork. Next, a judgment has to be made on whether to call witnesses to prove the case or simply to serve the statements on the accused and then read them out in court. But why should we expend time and effort on people who are irresponsible enough to ignore the process? Inevitably, therefore, a CPS representative would turn up in court and read out the statements, and the case would be proved.
Under the new clause, in that second class of cases in which the procedures are ignored, the police officer can present the case to the court as the CPS would have done. To show how important it is, I shall give a case study, as it were, concerning the Metropolitan police. Although this example is of what happens in London, I stress that the problem affects all police forces; the new clause would benefit the administration of justice throughout the country.
In 2004, the Metropolitan police reorganised the way in which it dealt with road traffic offences. It formed a pan-London traffic criminal justice operation or command unit. As a result, all London’s traffic offence prosecutions go through one office. That has ended the postcode lottery of whether the police would decide to prosecute, so we have consistency, and with it come economies of scale, standardised processes and improved IT support systems.
Crucially, the police depend on a good strong partnership with the CPS and the courts. Between them, the three partners have developed a system of five specialised traffic gateway courts. All cases go through one of those five courts, and the system has resulted in an effective use of everyone’s time and the consistent enforcement of traffic law. I would argue that, if people cannot get away with breaking road traffic laws, the system also makes an effective contribution to road safety.
The police in London would like a similar model to deal with camera fines and other fixed penalty notices that have to go to court—for example, when cases are contested. The volume of work would be too much for the five gateway courts, and the police are currently negotiating for additional operations courts. Except for the specified proceedings, the CPS still has to provide the prosecution staff in all courts for all cases. As the Metropolitan police has found, however, the CPS is unwilling, because it is stretched, to devote resources to matters such as safety camera prosecutions.
The police are quite willing to provide the prosecution—except, of course, in not-guilty trials. They can prosecute the specified proceedings, except when the accused ignores the process, because there has to be proof in absence. In that situation, the court has the discretion to allow the case to be presented by a police officer, rather than a CPS prosecutor. Clearly, it is not possible to build a strategy on the hope that all courts will grant a police officer permission to do that on the day. If the new clause were passed, however, it would allow prosecutions to proceed in an orderly way. In any case, what is wrong with going that slight step further and using the law to allow police officers to carry on as they usually would and prove the case in absence? A fixed penalty notice system is good, but it must be underpinned by the ability to take people to court, which means proving the case in their absence if they ignore the process.
New clause 3 is narrowly drawn and deals only with the mischief that I have identified. It would give the police new powers and provide for new procedures, allowing the police to speed up the criminal justice system to the extent that it is in their power to do so. The Metropolitan police has used such new powers and procedures most effectively in dealing with road traffic offences, but it has alerted us to a bottleneck that it encounters at the court stage. It foresees it growing significantly, and as I said at the beginning, it will extend to other parts of the country. It is incumbent on us to remove that bottleneck, and we have the opportunity to do so today. That is why I tabled the new clause.

Stephen Hammond: Conservative Members give new clause 3 a cautious welcome. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making available to me some of the briefings that he has had from various organisations. As he rightly said, the new clause is designed to tighten up procedures and end an anomaly by giving police officers rights of audience when offenders do not turn up. Where no plea has been entered, and the prosecution believes that the case could be proved at first hearing, court presentation officers should have the right of audience.
As the hon. Gentleman said, such an arrangement would have the advantage of relieving an overworked CPS. If the new clause came into effect, the CPS would deal with traffic offences only where more serious, non-specified crimes took place or where cases relating to specified crimes had been adjourned for trial. As the hon. Gentleman said, the CPS was previously needed in such cases simply because the courts were required to hear a statement of evidence. Such statements would be read out by the CPS, so the case could be presented and proved only by the CPS.
The new clause would make it the norm for court presentation officers to be used for all minor offences. It would remove the anomalous power of individual courts not to grant rights of audience. I note from the hon. Gentleman’s comments and from representations from the police that the police are pressing for the right of audience in such cases.
I looked at the contrary argument, which seems to be that a person who is absent has no defence. They would therefore require an independent prosecution, and that would be of the highest importance in such cases. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, why should the whole process be held up by people who are, in effect, thumbing their noses at the system and saying, “We are not going to attend court”? As we and the Minister have said throughout, we aim to deal with the hard core of offenders, and non-attendees at court are often the very serial offenders we are talking about. 
Therefore, we give the new clause a cautious welcome. I say cautious because no one should assume from our support for extending the rights of audience in this specific case that we would necessarily support extensions elsewhere. In this case, however, such an extension would end an anomaly.

Stephen Ladyman: I hope that you had a good Easter, Mrs. Anderson, and I welcome you back to the Chair.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for raising this issue. I entirely understand his point and agree with his intentions, but I am afraid that for several reasons I shall advise the Committee not to accept the new clause. The first is that there is already judicial discretion about who can appear in front of the court in a routine case. Therefore, judges can, and sometimes do, allow police officers to present routine cases. The cases that my hon. Friend has identified are the sort to which judicial discretion could be applied.
The Government’s preference is that we should leave the matter to judicial discretion, rather than putting in place an automatic power to allow certain individuals to appear before a court, which would be impossible to remove without further legislation. As the new clause is drafted, there is a tension between whether an officer who is to act as a court presentation officer needs to have had a certain amount of training, and whether the court presentation officer should just follow guidance as to how he should behave. If the new clause were accepted, it would not be possible to take the power of appearance away from individuals even if things were not to work out in the way in which my hon. Friend assumes that they will, and people were to present to the court defective cases that held up its procedures.
Although it is the Government’s view that the matter is best left to judicial discretion, I hope that I will go some way towards satisfying my hon. Friend if I tell him that the Metropolitan police, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Department for Transport are working together on it. The Metropolitan police has agreed to put together information for the DCA about the rights of judicial discretion, and how it could be used to improve the presentation and efficiency of routine cases. We undertake that, when we have that information, we will do what we can to ensure that all courts realise how they might use that discretion and think about how they can improve the efficiency of presentation of cases.

David Kidney: I am disappointed because, as I explained, the Metropolitan police has developed a system to deal consistently with road traffic offenders. On Tuesday afternoon, when my hon. Friend asked us to vote against several clauses in the Bill, he said that the laws were adequate and that we just needed to enforce them consistently and effectively. Does he not recognise that there is an inconsistency in his argument if he thinks that a whole strategy can rely on thinking, “One day the court might grant a discretion to allow the officer to present the case when he gets there.”?

Stephen Ladyman: My point is that the Metropolitan police has already gone a long way towards making the presentation of such cases more efficient, using the existing law. We believe that that can go further, bridging the gap between what the Metropolitan police is doing and what it wants to do, without the introduction of the power suggested in new clause 3. I am confident that, working together, the Metropolitan police, the Department for Transport and the DCA can resolve the issue to the satisfaction not only of the Metropolitan police but of my hon. Friend, without running the risk of creating a new power that could not be removed if it turned out to have side effects that my hon. Friend does not intend.
My strong advice is that the Committee should not accept the new clause, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts my assurance that the DCA, my officials and the Metropolitan police and others will work on the matter to find a way of resolving it without the need for the new clause.

David Kidney: If I may, I should like to reserve the right to come back to the matter on Report. Having listened to the Minister, I realise that I need to lobby not just his Department but the DCA. I urge him not to be so timid about changing the law that was passed in 1985. Parliament has changed it in other regards. A good example is the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which amended the Crown Prosecution Service provisions in the 1985 Act to allow, when suitable, non-legal staff in the CPS office to present cases on behalf of the CPS.
We were bold enough then to let the CPS use non-lawyers to present some of their court cases, which are more serious, obviously, than the ones about which I am talking. Surely, the matter is not a difficult one. Let us be sufficiently bold, recognise that there is a bottleneck, and make that modest amendment, because when the Bill is passed, our next opportunity to do that could be many years away. So I shall not press the new clause to a vote, but I would like to come back to the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

Impact of the period of summer time on road safety
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall report on the impact of the period of summer time on road safety.
(2) The first report under this section shall be in respect of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of this Act.
(3) Subsequent reports under this section shall be in respect of the period of 12 months beginning with the end of the previous reporting period.
(4) Each report under this section shall be prepared as soon as practicable after the end of the period to which it relates.
(5) The Secretary of State shall—
(a) lay a copy of each report under this section before each House of Parliament, and
(b) publish each such report in such manner as he thinks fit.'. —[Mr. Kidney.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

David Kidney: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Here I am again. The new clause would require that, each year, the Department for Transport report on the effects on road safety of the way that clocks are set in the United Kingdom. I have in mind that we would receive reports like that from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that commented on the way that we changed our clocks in 2004:
“In 2004, road deaths rose from 269 in October to 300 in November”,
which would have been just after we put the clocks back,
“and to 323 in December.”
That trend was the same with pedestrian deaths: there were 56 in that October, then we put the clocks back and the figure rose to 76 in November, and to 78 in December.
People who have analysed the matter year after year have shown consistently that at the end of October, when we put the clocks back and evenings become darker earlier, the casualty rates in this country go up. Clearly, there are road safety benefits from doing something different with our clocks in order to preserve lighter evenings, especially in the winter.

Tom Harris: My hon. Friend will know from Second Reading that I, unlike many Scottish politicians, support a move away from British summer time to allow lighter evenings and darker mornings in Britain. Is it not the case that in winter it is inevitable that days become shorter, regardless of whether we put the clocks back? Is it not possible that the increase in the number of road accidents is simply a result of that inevitable physical phenomenon?

David Kidney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Greater minds than I, particularly those at the Transport Research Laboratory, have researched that matter, and it seems that casualty rates are highest at dusk. Is he asking whether, if we change the time of dusk, that casualty rate would move to the new time, or whether we would actually remove it altogether? The TRL’s judgment is that we would remove the accidents and casualties an hour later because most people make their journeys by the clock. For example, it is the time, not dusk, that determines when people finish and go home from school or work, or go somewhere before going home. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to turn this into a debate about putting the clocks forward or back, because that is beyond the scope of the Bill or the new clause.
I shall provide some background so that people understand. Currently in this country, in winter time—October to March—we are on Greenwich mean time. In the summer months—March to October—we are on Greenwich mean time, plus one hour, and moving the clocks forward by one hour in March means that we have one extra hour of daylight in the evening.
Between 1968 and 1971, an experiment was carried out. In March 1968, the clocks were put forward by one hour, and were left there until October 1971. That was known as British standard time, during which road safety was monitored. After making the necessary adjustments, the Transport Research Laboratory concluded that, per winter, during the experiment, 1,120 fewer people were killed or seriously injured on our roads. That included 230 fewer fatalities. That was, to me, quite a significant change.
There have been some further assessments of whether the effect that was seen in 1968 to 1971 would still hold good today. I asked the Minister a written parliamentary question and he confirmed that the TRL had updated its estimate of the effects of changing daylight time. He said that the conclusion was that
“there could be a reduction in road casualties of over 400 people killed or seriously injured per year in Great Britain, including 100 deaths.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2005; Vol. 439,c. 514W.]
In actual fact, looking at the research, 450 fewer people would be killed or seriously injured, which includes between 104 and 138 fewer fatalities.
We can clearly make road safety gains if we change the way in which we set our clocks in this country. If a report set out year after year the trend that every October, November and December saw a rising number of deaths on our roads coinciding with when we put the clocks back, one day the penny would drop that there is a good safety argument for not putting the clocks back. For completeness, my favourite approach would be in the winter to have GMT plus one hour, and in the summer GMT plus two hours, which people call single/double summer time.
The Bill is not the vehicle to change the way in which we set our clocks. That is a reserved matter for the whole of the United Kingdom, although I note that in the other place Lord Tanlaw suggested a pilot for three years of single-double summer time in England only, allowing the devolved authorities to join in with the experiment if they wanted. Clearly, there are wider implications than just road safety. There are many positive reasons beyond road safety for why we should make that change, but for today I am asking for the Minister to agree that there should be an annual report on the road safety consequences of what we do with our clocks in order to see whether the Department for Transport, at least, would support making that change.

Stephen Hammond: I was remiss earlier, Mrs. Anderson. I welcome you back to the Chair after Easter and I trust you had a good break.
The new clause, as the hon. Gentleman has said, would require a report on the impact on road safety for 12 months and another for each subsequent 12 months, and would allow the Minister to publish those reports and lay them as and where he sees fit. It does not call for any action at this stage.
Many of us will have received a briefing from the Longer Day UK group, which makes some claims about the number of road deaths that could be avoided. It gave the TRL estimates of how many casualties could have been avoided over 25 years if we changed to what it calls the daytime-saving timetable: 20,000, starting from 1971. Unfortunately, the table that it presents for us only starts from 1975, so it is difficult to make a real estimate of whether that is right. It also brushes aside any comments about safety to cyclists that have been raised. I am sure that there is detailed methodology in it somewhere, but we have yet to see it. It also talks clearly about a number of other benefits outside the scope of the Committee’s deliberations.
I listened to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the experiment between 1968 and 1971, prior to the Summer Time Act 1972, when we had the extra hour in place for three years. He cited a set of numbers, which were supposedly the benefit of that experiment. However, there are other quotations. The Government have said that the method was piloted between 1968 and 1971, and that some findings estimate 2,500 deaths and serious injuries occurred each year as a result. The hon. Gentleman talked about the most up-to-date evidence from the TRL and quoted the Minister from November last year, but the Minister was probably just citing the numbers relating to the savings that were already established as a result of the 1968 to 1971 survey. Lord Sainsbury, who was answering for the Government in another place, said that the facts were that we
“would save 100 lives and 300 serious injuries each year.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2005; Vol. 675, c. 389.]
Those figures are based on the 1968 to 1971 survey, and seem to be the established numbers. There is some controversy about the numbers, and we clearly need to examine a number of other sources, not just the road safety ones. The Government say that the experiment proved unpopular at the time.
I find it difficult to support the new clause, because it is likely to be highly restrictive. If we were to think about moving to GMT plus one for the whole year, we would need to look at considerably more aspects than road safety, which would mean another report and another set of costs. The experiment has been done once before in relation to road safety and we know the facts.

David Kidney: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are much wider implications than road safety and there are other issues to take into account, but on his point about Lord Sainsbury’s claim that the Transport Research Laboratory’s information is simply going back to the findings of 1968 to1971, I refer him to the 1998 report by Broughton and Stone from the Transport Research Laboratory, which assesses the effects of single/double summer time. It is different from the 1968 to 1971 experiment and takes into account casualty figures between 1969 and 1994. It is clearly a more up-to-date assessment and is not simply rehashing old figures.

Stephen Hammond: I accept that point, but the hon. Gentleman is using a different set of numbers than those proposed during that experiment. The findings of that experiment are well founded and on that basis we would find the new clause difficult to support.

Greg Knight: This is probably the only time ever that I am likely to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Stafford, whose general views on road traffic matters are that we should bring back the carrying of a red flag in front of cars. I find myself with him on this issue. Approximately 400 deaths a year are caused, along with many serious injuries, by our adhering to this ridiculous ritual of putting our clocks back every autumn.

Stephen Hammond: I just wanted to clarify the point: it is 100 deaths, but 400 deaths and serious injuries.

Greg Knight: I am grateful for that clarification. In my view, if we can preserve just one life, an experiment is worth pursuing. I am with the hon. Member for Stafford on this issue. He is quite right: the new clause would not bring about a change in our hours, but he is clearly seeking to knock at the door and to get Ministers to think about making a change. For that reason, I find myself supporting him. I do not like the wording of his clause and I do not like provisions in legislation that call for unnecessary reports and bureaucracy, but I can see why he has called for it.
The argument I have heard for not making the change is that it would upset the Scots; a handful of Scots living in the north-west of Scotland would not like it if we made this change. Well, they have their own Parliament. Although this is currently a reserved matter, I would give Scotland the power to choose its own time zone. Let the Scots give themselves their own time zone if they do not want the implementation of this particular provision.
I have heard it said that the Government may have sold the pass on this issue by giving to the European Union an undertaking that we would not interfere with the time zones in force in the UK without EU permission. I hope that the Minister will confirm that there is no substance to that rumour.

Stephen Ladyman: It is the first I have heard of it, so if any such commitment has been given, it was by some other Minister.

Greg Knight: I find that partly reassuring. I hope that when the Minister responds, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), he will throw away his civil service brief and embrace the new clause. However, if he is not prepared to do that, I hope that the hon. Member for Stafford will be prepared to withdraw the motion and new clause with a view to returning to it on Report. On this subject, he will have friends in all parts of the House.

Alistair Carmichael: It may surprise some people when I say that I also support the new clause, although for different reasons from those outlined by the hon. Member for Stafford.
Every year the clocks go forward, and as sure as they change, somebody in this House or the other place introduces a private Member’s Bill to embark on the same experiment as before—the sort that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Journalists go to the file marked “Time zones”, and they say, “Ah, yes. The Member for Orkney and Shetland is bound to feel concerned about this, because he lives so far away from the rest of us.”
Every year, as sure as the clocks change and the private Member’s Bill is introduced, I end up trotting down Millbank to the radio studios to explain my views on the subject. It is not because I live closer to Norway than London. That is where I take issue with the uncharacteristically ill-informed view of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). There is no north-south split; it is more east-west. I suspect that people in south-west Cornwall feel much more strongly about this than people in Orkney or Shetland, because no matter how extravagant the claims made by those who seek to visit the change upon us, nothing but nothing will make the days in Orkney and Shetland longer in the winter. I hope that nothing will change the fact that we enjoy almost continual daylight at the height of summer. I was going to say sunshine, but we are not always that lucky.
From a constituency point of view, it remains dark in Shetland in the depths of winter and does not get properly light until 9 to 9.30 in the morning. In the afternoon, it gets dark again by 3 to 3.30. The changes that the hon. Member for Stafford talks about will make no difference to that whatever.
However, there is some merit in the hon. Gentleman’s new clause, because it states that a report should be made to Parliament about the way in which we order our time zones, and the impact that it has on road safety. I fear that many claims made on behalf of change are somewhat inflated and overstated. If we had from the Minister and his Department a proper and rigorous assessment that was open about not only its conclusions but the modelling and methodology used to reach them, we would enjoy a much more informed debate. It would allow the drawing of clearer lines than those that I have witnessed over the past five years, trotting down Millbank every spring. We might all benefit as a result.
I am confident that my views are right. The report that would be produced as a result of the new clause would demonstrate as much in time.

Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue. As he observed, his proposed new clause calls on us neither to introduce nor reintroduce single/double summer time; it calls on us to do a piece of research each year and to report the findings of that research. My hon. Friend, who is a solicitor, knows that my background is that of a scientist, so as a Minister I am usually the first to leap at the opportunity to commission research, because I am occasionally given the opportunity to throw a few bob to the boys in the lab. The only reason to do research, however, is to provide answers to questions to which we do not have the answer, but we already have the answer to this question.
In my written answer to my hon. Friend’s parliamentary question, I said publicly, and I shall reiterate now, that changing to single/double summer time would have road safety benefits. It is not in doubt—the research has been done. It was done following the experiment to which the hon. Member for Wimbledon referred, and we have the report from TRL in 1998 that examined the impact of single/double summer time more closely. We know it will have road safety benefits—that is not in doubt, so there is no point commissioning any more research on it. I buy the argument and I have heard nobody either disagree with it or challenge the data.
How many lives and injuries would the change save? Something of the order of 100 lives, and something of the order of 400 people killed or seriously injured. One has to accept that, back in 1998, a slightly higher rate of people were killed or seriously injured. Since then the rate has been falling in general, so we must assume that a reduction is occurring too in the total number of people whose lives would be saved as a result of single/double summer time or who would not receive serious injuries. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept that approximately 100 lives would be saved and approximately 400 people killed or seriously injured would be spared that fate.
However, as hon. Members said, it is not a matter for the Committee or the Road Safety Bill, nor indeed it is a matter just for the Department for Transport. It is a matter primarily for the Department of Trade and Industry, because it has things to take into account about the economic performance of the country. It is also a matter for the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which represents the interests of agriculture, although I have never quite understood why farmers are always quoted as the reason why we cannot move the clocks forward, because I would have thought that farmers could get up whenever they wanted to get up, and I assume that those who deal with livestock get up with the cows, rather than when the Government say they should.
The matters go beyond the scope of the Department for Transport and beyond road safety. If my hon. Friend wishes to campaign with those Departments for a permanent change, however, he is welcome to do so. He can quote both me and the research, and say that I entirely accept that there would be significant road safety benefits. I hope that, having taken away my commitment to back up his lobbying expeditions, he will then accept that there is no point burdening us with the need to repeat and republish the research every year, when we already accept his argument.

David Kidney: My hon. Friend’s contribution is helpful and I am grateful. I have one question. The TRL report that I mentioned was from 1998, so clearly it updated its thinking, and it would be desirable if they updated their thinking from time to time in future too. Will he assure us that it should do that if it were relevant?

Stephen Ladyman: Absolutely. If we came to the conclusion that for some reason the research was becoming out of date, I would certainly commission an update. I suspect that if my hon. Friend and his colleagues were to begin to convince Ministers in other Departments that we should change our clocks,there would be wide consultation and all Departments would have to pitch in and explain their attitude.I would expect, in the normal course of events, thatwe would want to update the evidence as part of that debate. In the meantime, we accept that there would road safety benefits, but that road safety is not the only issue to be considered and many other things must be taken into account. The Government must take a wide view of the subject and consider the difference throughout the country, north and south, east and west, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said. Many more issues than road safety must be taken into account, but I accept that there would be road safety benefits in a change to single/double summer time.

David Kidney: The debate has been helpful and has clarified many things. I shall accede to the request from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire to withdraw the motion and new clause—it is not every day that he offers to stand with me under the red flag—and save the argument for another day.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the value of research. It is not only scientists who value research; politicians also like to make evidence-based decisions. He is right to remind us that scientists have a role to play in providing evidence from time to time.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who agreed with the new clause for reasons other than the time issue. He reminded me why we should be hesitant about a change as big as altering an entire time zone by Act of Parliament. I shall be cautious about wanting to do that.
It seems odd that the Conservative Front Bench does not support my wish to consider the matter more deeply. On Tuesday, it argued for us to do more about level crossings. If we eradicated every death on a level crossing we might save 20 lives a year. At a previous sitting, I argued for a lower drink-driving limit, which might save 50 or 60 lives a year. The measure that we are discussing would save more than 100 lives a year. Important as the other measures are, they pale into insignificance compared with the one before us.

Stephen Hammond: We argued that we would not support another report because it would involve another set of costs.

David Kidney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support my argument that it is helpful to keep the research up to date so that decisions are based on evidence and fact rather than on prejudice and opinion.
I shall take the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister and lobby other Departments to try to obtain more general support for a change of time, which would have the helpful by-product of saving many lives on the roads every year.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Motorcycles in bus lanes
‘All bus lanes in the adjacent vehicle lane shall be open to use by motorcycles when buses are moving in the same direction as traffic.'. —[Mr. Paterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Owen Paterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mrs. Anderson. Sir Nicholas was in the Chair and bursting with testosterone after the Easter break. I hope that you are similarly revived.
The Minister and I attended a meeting of the all-party group on motorcycling yesterday and there was agreement on the new clause, which simply proposes that all bus lanes should be open to motorcycles as long as they move in the same direction. I shall be brief because I am conscious of the time and also of the blood pressure of the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). I shall not plough through the large report published by Transport for London on the interim results.
The bones of the report are that there is convincing evidence that the use of bus lanes by motorcycles reduces the vulnerability of motorcyclists without affecting the vulnerability of other road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. It is common sense to move motorcycles away from other road vehicles such as lorries, heavy goods vehicles and so on—not mixing traffic seems to work. Motorcyclists would be more visible to other road users, and lack of visibility is often cited as the cause of accidents. I can find no studies that indicate that the risk to cyclists and pedestrians increased when motorcycles were allowed access to bus lanes.
Motorcycles pollute less on any given commuter journey because they do not get stuck in traffic and sit with their engines idling. They do not contribute to traffic congestion, as they keep moving. Allowing them into bus lanes recognises that they are an important part of commuter transport, which I believe reflects the Government’s motorcycle strategy to promote them as a mainstream transport activity.
It is interesting to note that motor cycles in bus lanes do not slow up buses. The buses set the speed, and, as a result, motor cyclists tend not to speed. None of the local authorities that have allowed motor cycles to use bus lanes have reported safety problems, and the evidence in the Transport for London report is that there was an 8 per cent. reduction in powered two-wheeler collisions on the A23 and a 31 per cent. reduction on the A41. If we combine those figures—as a scientist, the Minister will agree with this—that is a 19 per cent. reduction in all PTW collisions. The reduction of such collisions in the control areas was0 per cent.
The Minister said on Tuesday that such a provision would be redundant because local authorities can already allow motor bikes to use bus lanes. The problem is that more oomph is needed to promote such change. The new clause would provide that oomph.
Some authorities allow motor cycles to use some bus lanes. In Bristol, the policy is city-wide, and there have been no problems. In South Gloucestershire, it covers the whole local authority area, and there have been no problems. In North Somerset, the policy again covers the whole local authority area, and there have been no problems. In Peterborough, it relates to one bus lane, and there have been no problems. In Hull, there is a trial involving one lane, and there have been no problems. In Swindon, the policy covers the whole borough, and there have been no problems so far. In Reading, all the bus lanes in the borough are covered and the problems that were expected by cyclists have not materialised. In Essex, the policy is county-wide, and there have been no problems. In Derby, where the policy applies to Nottingham and Uttoxeter New roads, there have not been any problems. In Kingston upon Thames, half the bus lanes in the borough are covered by it, and there have been no problems so far. In Sheffield, one bus lane is open to motor cyclists, but there will be two next year, and there have been no problems. In Richmond upon Thames, motor cycles are allowed to use three bus lanes, and there have been no problems. In Westminster, motor cycles can use eight bus lanes out of a proposed nine, and there have been no safety problems. That brief summary indicates that the measure does work.
The Minister will tell us that giving motor cycles access to bus lanes is allowed by legislation and is subject to local government decision. My contention is that this is a major safety measure. Also, it is a pity that part of our road capacity is underused—buses do not use the capacity the whole time. This common-sense new clause would allow all motor cyclists to use all bus lanes immediately, rather than wait for decision making by local governments. Until yesterday, I did not realise that local authorities had discretion on this.

Brian Iddon: I am mandated to speak on the new clause by my office manager. If I were not to speak on it, I would not get the same excellent service that I have always had from her. She is a biker, and she has lobbied me on this matter continuously since I was elected to Parliament in 1997.
The main reason I support the new clause is that there is complete inconsistency across the country, as exemplified by the comments by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). We must seriously consider the use of bus lanes. For example, there are bus lanes on two parallel arterial roads into Bolton town centre. Motorists can travel on one of them outside peak hours but not on the other. For a motorist entering the town for the first time, it is complete confusion. They must read the signs very carefully, but, frankly, that is not easy in congested traffic.
The same argument applies to other vehicles using bus lanes. It is necessary to review how bus lanes are used across the country. In some authorities, taxis can use bus lanes; in others, they cannot. I am arguing for consistency in the use of bus lanes, which is currently confusing not only for bikers but for other vehicle users.
With the imposition of the congestion charge in London—it will no doubt come in in other cities—there has been a huge increase in the use of motor cycles, exemplified by the sales of them across the land. I occasionally drive in London, and it is frankly terrifying to see the way in which not only motor cyclists but cyclists zip in and out of the traffic. That must undoubtedly lead to collisions. I do not have any statistics and I have not studied the subject, but it is common sense to reach that conclusion. I therefore support the idea of allowing all motor cyclists to use bus lanes. I would go even further and impose on them the requirement to use bus lanes, to stop them going in and out between other vehicles, as we see in such an exaggerated way in our capital.
I hope that, even if the Minister urges us not to support the new clause, he will take our views back to his Department so that we can examine and rationalise the use of bus lanes.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Member for North Shropshire alluded to the fact that he and I were at a meeting of the all-party group on motorcycling yesterday. I made it clear, and reiterate for the record, that I have seen no evidence that there is any negative safety impact of motor cycles using bus lanes. Indeed, I see positive benefits to it, because as part of our national motor cycling strategy we want to make motor cycling mainstream. We see it as one way in which we can help to relieve congestion and improve social mobility, as long as we can do so while maintaining the safety of motor cyclists and other road users. Motor cycles using bus lanes would contribute to that.
Motor cycles should not be able to use every bus lane in the country, as the new clause would require them to do. I draw the line at that. I suspect that there will be some bus lanes that, because of their construction and the way in which they are commonly used in their local environment, will not be suitable for motor cycles and therefore need to be restricted to buses. Those lanes will be exceptional cases in one or two places where the local authority has a good reason not to want motor cycles in a bus lane. However, in 99 per cent. of cases I do not see any disadvantage in a motor cycle using a bus lane. Local authorities have the power to allow that to happen. It is entirely at their discretion.
I shall go on to explain how we have reached a situation whereby most bus lanes exclude motor cyclists. I want the Committee to realise that I believe that most bus lanes are suitable for the use of motor cycles.

Greg Knight: I have been pleased to hear what the Minister has said so far, but will he put his money where his mouth is? Local authorities may indeed have discretion, but his Department should give guidance that unless there are circumstances in which it would be unsafe, as he alluded to, the default position should be that motor cyclists can use bus lanes. Will he consider changing his Department’s guidance to that effect?

Stephen Ladyman: The right hon. Gentleman brings me to the point that I was going to make about how we have ended up in this position. In 1997, when the document “Keeping Buses Moving”, which described the construction of bus lanes, was produced, it said that motor cycles should not normally use bus lanes. I was not involved in the production of that document, and I do not know the rationale for that. There may have been a perception that there was a threat to pedestrians from motor cycles in bus lanes, and that may have been why the recommendation was included.
To me, it would have been more obvious to point out that the people who should not be in bus lanes are pedestrians. Pedestrians should be on the pavement, not walking over bus lanes. If they do cross a bus lane, they need to take the same care as they are expected to take when crossing any road. That requires them to be alive to the possibility that not only buses but motor cycles might be in the bus lane. Nevertheless, we are discussing the position that was established in 1997, and the guidance on the Department’s website reflects that.
Since then, we have carried out a number of experiments and some local authorities have used their discretion. I understand that that discretion is used in Bristol and Birmingham. Indeed, it is used in respect of the most high-profile bus lanes for which the Department for Transport has responsibility—the M4 bus lane allows motor cycles—so we have shown that we believe that motor cycles ought to be allowed in bus lanes.
That discretion is being used in London for an experiment. It was due to finish last year, but the statisticians believed that sufficient data on accidents had not been accumulated for them to be able to draw clear conclusions, so it was recommended that it continue. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, however, the interim report shows that there is no evidence of a safety problem. In my view, the report is sufficiently convincing that we should start moving to a position whereby we remind local authorities that they have discretion, and I have taken steps to do that.
Assuming that there is no major change to the outcome of the experiment, I give a commitment that I will ensure that the guidance on the Department’s website is completely rewritten as soon as the experiment is finished, so that it is clear that there appears to be no safety risk in allowing motor cycles in bus lanes. In the meantime, we shall take steps to remind local authorities that they have that discretion.

Alistair Carmichael: If the situation is as the Minister says and in 99 per cent. of cases it would be perfectly acceptable to allow motor cycles in bus lanes, would it not be more appropriate to give local authorities the power to exclude motor cycles from certain bus lanes if they thought that the safety case for that had been made, rather than giving them a power to allow motor cycles in bus lanes?

Stephen Ladyman: That is the current position: local authorities have the power to exclude and the power to allow motor cycles in bus lanes. Originally, the Government guidance asked them to take the view that, normally, motor cycles would not be allowed in bus lanes. My view is that, as soon as we have the final data to confirm that allowing them in bus lanes is appropriate, we are likely to change the guidance to say that normally they should be allowed in.
However, there might still be one or two circumstances in which local authorities want to exclude motor cycles from bus lanes. For example, it might be inappropriate for motor cycles to be allowed in a bus lane leading directly to a bus station. It might be appropriate to be very strict about who is allowed in bus lanes in roads around schools, because of the way in which the roads are engineered and the layout of the roads and because of how the children—kids being kids—are likely to behave when getting off school buses. A local authority might want to exclude motor cycles from bus lanes in those areas, but my view is that, by and large, local authorities should be using their discretion to allow motor cycles in the vast majority of bus lanes, and we need to work to change the guidance to reflect that.

Owen Paterson: The Minister makes a sensible point: it might not be appropriate to allow motor bikes in bus lanes near schools and so on. However, the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) made a good point, too: the inconsistency is muddling for motorbike riders. A consensus seems to be emerging between my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that it would be better for it to be the general rule throughout the country that all bus lanes are open, unless a bus lane is clearly marked as an exception. That would be much easier for motor bike riders to understand; it is a response to the point about muddle and inconsistency.
I am encouraged by the Minister’s comments, and this is a probing new clause, but when he puts statements on the website, would it not be better to switch the presumption? The presumption should be that motor cycles are allowed in bus lanes unless a bus lane is near a school, a bus depot or whatever. Those are perfectly sensible exceptions and they should be clearly marked.

Stephen Ladyman: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I can see a practical advantage in what he suggests. At present it would be necessary for all the local authorities around the country to get out little pots of paint and put little motor cycle signs on everything to say that motor cycles are now allowed in. If excluding motor cycles is to become exceptional, it would be much cheaper to say that they are allowed unless there is a sign with a motor cycle with a red line through it. It would be much easier to identify that. I will certainly take that on board as we prepare the new guidance based on the outcome of the experiment.

Brian Iddon: My point is the same. The lack of consistency across the country on the usage of bus lanes by all vehicles, not just motor cycles, causes confusion. When a driver is entering a very busy town, paying attention to the movement of traffic in front of him is often more important than observing the signs approaching a bus lane. I find it difficult to read the signs on the usage of bus lanes for that reason. The consistency argument is very important.

Stephen Ladyman: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend is saying, not just in respect of motor cycles but in respect of all users of bus lanes. I find it incredibly confusing in London that some bus lanes are 7 till 7 while others are 7 till 10, 4 till 7 and 24-hour. Once a driver has missed the first sign at the beginning of the bus lane—his mind may have been on avoiding a traffic hazard—he has no idea whether the bus lane alongside him is empty at 8 o’clock at night because it is a 24-hour bus lane or because all the other drivers have also missed the sign and do not realise that they are allowed to use it. I would be interested in looking for some consistency and greater clarity in signing.

Greg Knight: We are having an interesting debate. My view is that we should never have 24-hour bus lanes when we do not have 24-hour buses. When in 2007 will the report conclude its work? Will the Minister give us a commitment that when he changes the guidance he will let us know by way of a written parliamentary statement?

Stephen Ladyman: I will certainly make a statement when we change the guidance. My understanding is that the full data should be available this summer, so we do not have to wait much longer until we can carry out the analysis. I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point that there should not be 24-hour bus lanes when there are not 24-hour buses, although I am happy to say that there are 24-hour buses in London. There are night buses. I now have the benefit of a ministerial car to get me home to my flat, but before I became a Minister I occasionally had to take the night bus. It was rather like one of the Quentin Tarantino vampire films; I would wonder whether I was the only person who was not about to turn into a werewolf. Nevertheless, we have 24-hour buses in London and they should be able to run congestion-free where appropriate. That is a matter for local authorities.
I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire will be prepared to withdraw his new clause, given my assurances, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East will explain to his assistant that I am entirely committed to her cause. I perhaps cannot move as fast as she would want me to, but I am determined to ensure that she can use bus lanes at some point in the very near future.

Owen Paterson: I am very encouraged by the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14

Pedicabs
‘(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations providing for—
(a) the application of relevant enactments to pedicabs; and
(b) the enforcement of relevant enactments in relation to pedicabs.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision for—
(a) identifying the person against whom enforcement action may be taken if there is a contravention of a relevant enactment;
(b) the registration of pedicabs by specified authorities and the provision and display of registration plates on pedicabs;
(c) the payment of fees for registration;
(d) the making of registers available for inspection and sale;
(e) offences relating to registration;
(f) transitional arrangements.
(3) In subsection (11) of section 15 (parking on footways, grass verges, etc.) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, in the definition of “vehicle”, after ‘means', insert ‘a pedicab' (within the meaning given by section (pedicabs) of the Road Safety Act 2006 (c. )).
(4) The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 is amended as follows—
(a) in section 4(5) (penalty charges for road traffic contraventions), for the words “motor vehicle” there is substituted “vehicle”;
(b) in section 4(16), the definition of “motor vehicle” is omitted and the following definition is inserted at the end—
‘“vehicle” means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads, or a pedicab within the meaning given by section (pedicabs) of the Road Safety Act 2005.”.
(5) The “appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales;
(6) A “pedicab” means a cycle constructed or adapted—
(a) to seat one or more passengers; and
(b) for the purpose of being made available with a driver for hire for the purpose of carrying passengers.
(7) “relevant enactment” means—
(a) section 15 (parking on footways, grass verges, etc.) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974;
(b) Part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (traffic in London);
(c) Part II of and Schedule 1 to the London Authorities Act 1996 (bus lanes);
(d) regulations made under section 144 of the Transport Act 2000 (civil penalties for bus lane contraventions);
(e) Part 2 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London 2003 (road traffic and highways);
(f) regulations under section 72 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil penalties for road traffic contraventions);
(g) any other enactment relating to road traffic regulation, specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority, which provides for the service of penalty charge notice or notices to owner on the owner of a vehicle.
(8) “specified authority” means—
(a) in Greater London, Transport for London;
(b) elsewhere in England and Wales, a traffic authority.'. —[Mr. Scott.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lee Scott: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Although I originally called for pedicabs to be banned totally, I am pleased to speak in favour of new clause 14. It seeks to apply traffic and parking restrictions to pedicabs or rickshaws and specifically to apply penalties to the owners of pedicabs. I have received petitions and met a number of organisations, including the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association. Its members have direct and daily experience of problems caused by pedicabs in London. Up to 300 pedicabs now operate at any one time in central London, and they also operate in Bath, Cardiff and, I understand, Newcastle. The problems are common throughout the country, but are most intense in London.
Pedicabs are currently not subject to parking or traffic regulations. Pedicab drivers are not tested and are not required to train. They ride and park wherever they choose. As a result, they cause obstructions for road users, taxis, buses and emergency vehicles, particularly outside theatres and restaurants in central London. They use and block bus lanes, pedestrian crossings, pavements and box crossings. They also obstruct emergency vehicle access points, which has implications for the safety not only of road users, but of the wider public.
Thus, applying parking traffic regulations to pedicabs is an urgent necessity. We seek to apply them to the owners because of the nature of the industry. Many of the drivers are employed casually and it would not be practical to apply penalties to them. It is the owners who must take responsibility—after all, they are the ones making huge profits.
As well as being untested and untrained, and often casually employed, drivers are not vetted, which of course contrasts with every other licensed taxi trade. The dangers of unlicensed minicabs have been widely recognised over the years. The same considerations apply to pedicabs. As an illustration of the dangers, it is worth noting the tragic case that concluded on 18 March last year, when a pedicab rider was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for the rape of a 23-year-old female passenger who had been in their care.
Pedicabs themselves are dangerous. No standards are applied to their construction. They are often poorly constructed and not subject to any tests, such as MOTs. The Transport Research Laboratory—the independent body used by the Government—was asked to examine one of the most common pedicabs. It concluded that, in its professional opinion, the passenger compartment would provide little or no protection in the event of an accident.
As a result of all those points of concern, Transport for London and Westminster city council, among others, have sought to regulate pedicabs and apply a licensing regime to them. Licensing has been promised but much delayed. As all parties, including the Government, agree that unlicensed pedicabs cause obstructions to road users and that the way in which they operate puts pedestrians, their passengers and other road users at risk, there is no reason to delay imposing traffic and parking regulations on them.I therefore urge the Committee to support newclause 14.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I cannot support the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. Although there is clearly a problem to be dealt with, I am concerned that the new clause would in effect drive pedicabs off the streets, which is not what we should be seeking to do through the Bill. I continue to work on the issue myself, and hope to table an amendment on Report, if the Speaker considers that appropriate.

Stephen Hammond: I am disappointed to hear that response from the hon. Gentleman. Let us cut to the thrust of the argument. The pedicabs and rickshaws operating in London exploit a legal loophole that permits pedal-powered vehicles to operate outside the hackney carriage and private hire vehicle regulations. Their construction and maintenance is not standardised or regulated, and most of them have no insurance. The riders are often untrained and are usually overseas students being charged a fee by owners to operate them. The riders have no experience either in the operation of the vehicles or in the routes.
There is no set fee. Clearly, we are in favour of the free market, but the potential to rip off customers and exploit overseas tourists, which is bad news for London business, contrasts with the regulation of most vehicle hire in London. The green, alternative argument that is often put is a fallacy, because most of the journeys that pedicabs operate are short and could be walked. Very often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott) pointed out, their obedience to traffic regulations is somewhere between zero and none. They block west end streets, they congregate at theatres, blocking roads, and there are problems with complying with red lights, which we have discussed on numerous occasions.
More importantly, this is the Road Safety Bill, so let us expand on three points made by the Transport Research Laboratory on the safety of pedicabs. It said:
“A literature review considered existing regulations and standards that could be applied to Pedicabs and found that although both construction and use regulations and the Highway Code could be applied to Pedicabs, no specific mention of them was made in either. The Pedicab tested failed to comply with certain aspects of the regulations reviewed.”
It went on to say:
“Braking and Handling trials tested the braking performance and stability of the Pedicab under various conditions. The braking performance of a laden Pedicab was found to be significantly lower than that of a car.”
Finally, as my hon. Friend said, the TRL
“concluded that the passenger compartment would provide little or no protection in the event of almost any accident.”
If there was ever a compelling case for a clause to close this legal loophole and to make registration compulsory, this is it.

Stephen Ladyman: Should pedicabs be licensed and properly managed? Yes, of course they should. Everywhere else in the country, outside London, they are licensed as taxicabs and local authorities control them well. We have received no requests or lobbying from anybody outside London for any changes to the existing system or law. In those areas, the pedicabs seem to co-exist happily with the local community. Inside London, I agree that there is a different problem, because currently pedicabs fall outside the licensing regime. Transport for London is intending to bring them inside the licensing regime very shortly. I hope that when it does so the problems identified by Conservative Members will be resolved.
If I may introduce a note of controversy in what until now has been a pretty consensual Committee on most issues, I suspect that the Conservative Members’ briefs were written for them by the taxi associations. Those associations do not want pedicabs to be managed or to be brought within a licensing regime. They want them off the road, because they perceive that pedicabs are taking away some of their money. The hon. Member for Ilford, North says that pedicab owners are making profits, but what does he think taxi drivers and the people who own taxis are doing?

Lee Scott: rose—

Stephen Ladyman: Let me finish. The hon. Gentleman has made his point; I am entitled to put the alternative case. The hon. Member for Wimbledon says that people have to pay to pull pedicabs, but how does he think most of the hackney cabs in London are financed and put on the roads? It is exactly the same situation. If managed properly within a licensing regime, pedicabs could provide an additional level of diversity in the way in which people may move around the city.
I do not imagine that pedicabs will be the transport of choice for people who work in London, but they may be the occasional transport of choice for tourists, people attending the theatre, or those out for a romantic evening who feel that it would be fun to be pulled through the park. If that is what they want to do, why not allow them? [Laughter.] I probably did not phrase that very well. Never having been pulled in the park, I did not realise how that would sound until it came out of my mouth. Pedicabs can add to the diversity of transport in the city, so long as they are properly licensed and the issues about the people who pull them and the ways in which they are parked and use the streets are managed properly.
Pedicabs must follow the same rules of the road as everybody else and they are subject to police enforcement. We discussed cyclists in earlier sittings, and the police should be stopping pedicabs that are breaking the rules just as they should be stopping cyclists who are breaking the rules.

Lee Scott: Licensed taxi fares are regulated, but pedicab fares are not regulated by anyone.

Stephen Ladyman: That is an extraordinary statement for a Conservative to make; are pedicab fares not regulated by the marketplace? If people are being charged too much, will they not simply not get in to pedicabs? I know that the Conservative party is chameleon-like and is trying to change its image, but I did not think that it had completely divorced itself from market philosophy. Clearly that change has happened today. I hope that my colleagues will relay that message to the Prime Minister so that he can take account of it.
Certainly, pedicabs should not rip people off, and should be within a licensed regime. That is what Transport for London is trying to achieve.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister is at his most disingenuous today. As we have seen throughout our proceedings, his inspiration usually comes not out of his own mouth or mind, but from some gentlemen or ladies who sit at the top table—as does most of his briefing.
We have had several representations on this point. This is not about stifling free enterprise. If the Minister wants a taxi drivers’ regime across London with no regulation, he should introduce it. That seems to be the thrust of his recent argument, although I am sure that that is not what he meant to say. This is about a group of people who currently act outside the law and potentially exploit visitors to this country. If the Minister or I were to walk this afternoon to a theatre in Westminster and decide afterwards that we wanted a ride back to the House of Commons in a pedicab, we would know the going rate for that trip, but a tourist from anywhere in the world might not know that the going rate from a theatre in Westminster to the House of Commons is not £50.
All we are trying to do is bring pedicabs inside a proper licensing regime. We have heard a lot of nonsense about chameleons and the free market, and I am sure that on reconsideration the Minister will want to disassociate himself from that burst of comedy. Let us get back to the serious point behind the new clause: the regulation of pedicabs, and correcting the loophole that exists only in London. Any fair-minded and sensible member of the Committee should want to support the clause.

Stephen Ladyman: First, let me defend myself. The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, but I have used the copious packs of briefing put before me every day for precisely one clause during our proceedings. I have not otherwise referred to any of it. In any event, the officials who provide me with inspiration and briefing do so according to instructions that they were previously provided with by me and other Ministers. That is different from using a taxi association briefing, which is truly disingenuous, because it is from people who see pedicabs as competition and want them off the road.
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause argues for what I hope he accepts is the appropriate way to deal with this: for pedicabs to be properly licensed, brought within a licensing regime, allowed to compete with taxi drivers, and made to follow the rules of the road. Enforcement of those rules is a matter for the police.
Mr. Knightrose—

Stephen Ladyman: Transport for London is already bringing pedicabs within its licensing regime, so new legislation is not required for that. The rest of the country seems to have managed this issue perfectly satisfactorily without new legislation, so I do not see any need for the new clause. Does the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire want to intervene?

Greg Knight: I did want to intervene, but the Minister answered my point in that summing up. I was going to ask whether Transport for London needs any further powers from us to make that change, but he covered that point. However, I must say, in passing, that he is beginning to sound rather demob happy.

Stephen Ladyman: Demob happy is probably a good way of putting it. It is rather a lot of work for a Minister to have to take a Bill through a Committee by himself. It is lonely work, but I can now see the distant light at the end of the tunnel. Nevertheless, I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman’s serious point.
Transport for London has not asked for new powers to deal with the problem, and I believe that the matter can be properly managed under the law as it stands. In any event, we will not legislate to take pedicabs off the road simply to give others the free use of the marketplace. Pedicabs have a contribution to make—not a major one, I suggest—and with a proper licensing regime they will be satisfactorily managed.

Lee Scott: I should like to press the motion to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 15

Passenger side mirrors
‘All HGV vehicles, operating in the UK, must have a mirror positioned on the exterior of the vehicle on the passenger side, which enables the driver to have a full view of vehicles and other road users in the neighbouring lanes, when driving on all roads in the United Kingdom.'. —[Mr. Paterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Owen Paterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am indebted to a near neighbour of the Minister’s—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—for bringing this matter to my attention. It is not particularly controversial. It is partly to do with the welcome expansion of the European Union and the enormous increase in traffic between us and the continent.
The problem is simple. We have the steering wheel on the right-hand side of the vehicle, and on the continent it is on the left. Continental trucks have no need for a wide-angled mirror on the passenger side when they are on the continent—but in the United Kingdom that is what would be the driver’s side.
The wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury had a horrible experience when overtaking a Hungarian lorry on the M2 near the Minister’s constituency. She was pushed into the central barrier, and the young Hungarian driver was aghast and horrified at what had happened. His lorry was completely legal according to Hungarian regulations, but did not have a wide-angled mirror fitted to the passenger side of his lorry. As a result, he simply did not see her.
My hon. Friend had a similar constituency case, in which a man was overtaking a continental lorry in the fast lane. The lorry did not see him and pulled out. I am not sure which country the lorry driver came from, but he was professional and had a good record; he was similarly horrified at what had happened.
I understand that an EU directive will make it compulsory for all new heavy goods vehicles to have wide-angled mirrors from 26 January 2007. The new clause is simple; it would require all HGVs in this country to have such mirrors fitted. It would make it mandatory. It is interesting that Holland and Belgium have already gone down that route. They have gone ahead of the Commission and made it compulsory to fit class 4 wide-angled mirrors to all HGVs. Analysis shows that the retrofitting of mirrors has been effective. There is clear anecdotal evidence of the danger. The directive as it stands is not good enough because it would apply only to new—

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.